Turning to Jeremiah 33:25–26 we read: "Thus saith the Lord; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth; then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them." The Lord is telling Jeremiah that He has a covenant with the day and the night which cannot be broken, and it is related to the promise to the descendants of David, including the One who was promised to take the throne (Christ). This covenant between God and the day and night began in Genesis 1, for God first defined and invented day and night when He spoke them into existence. There is no clear origin for day and night in the Scripture other than Genesis 1. Therefore, this must be the beginning of this covenant. So if this covenant between the day and the night does not exist when God clearly says it does (i.e., if you do not take Genesis 1 to literally mean six ordinary days), then this promise given here through Jeremiah is on shaky ground.

DOES THE LENGTH OF THE DAY MATTER?

Finally, does it really matter whether we accept them as ordinary days or not? The answer is a most definite "Yes!" It is really a principle of how one approaches the Bible. For instance, if we dont accept them as ordinary days then we have to ask the question, "What are they?" The answer is "We dont know." If we approach the days in this manner, then to be consistent we should approach other passages of Genesis in the same way. For instance, when it says God took dust and made Adam what does this mean? If it does not mean what is says, then we dont know what it means! We should take Genesis literally. Furthermore, it should be noted that you cannot "interpret literally," for a "literal interpretation" is a contradiction in terms. You either take it literally or you interpret it! It is important to realize we should take it literally unless it is obviously symbolic, and when it is symbolic either the context will make it quite clear or we will be told in the text.

If a person says that we do not know what the word "day" means in Genesis, can another person who says they are literal days be accused of being wrong? The answer is "No," because the person who accepts them as ordinary days does know what they mean. It is the person who does not know what the days mean who cannot accuse anyone of being wrong.